-By Sushant Chandra, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School
THE closure of the sesquicentennial anniversary of the Allahabad High Court marks an end of a glorious era and ushers in a new one — adorned by hopes and promises of reinstating the majesty and regal traditions of the court. This sesquicentennial merits a recount of the cherished past that is etched in the marble of the hallowed central marble hall. The hallowed portals have witnessed and savoured many tales.
The genesis of the Allahabad High Court can be traced back to the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 — a law that marked the unification of Indian judicial system under the patronage of the Crown. The Bombay High Court, the Madras High Court and the Calcutta High Court were the first three high courts that were established under the Act of 1861. The Allahabad High Court was the fourth to be established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 by Crown through a Letters Patent. Established in 1866, its seat was in Agra and it was then called the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces. Sir Walter Morgan was the first Chief Justice, along with five other puisne judges. A few years later, the seat of the High Court was changed from Agra to Allahabad and the designation altered to “the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad” in 1919 by a supplementary Letters Patent. The Allahabad High Court has housed ideas, ideals and philosophies of different generations. These have contributed in achieving freedom for India, the making of a modern state and in creating a rights-based regime. I wish to explore how values of righteousness, generosity and fearlessness constitute the moral spirit of the Allahabad High Court and need to be preserved.
To illustrate this, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha’s righteousness, in the famous Indira Gandhi case has been broached. It is well documented how Indira Gandhi, through the then Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, Justice DS Mathur, induced Justice Sinha to render the verdict in her favour but Justice Sinha’s righteousness trumped all considerations. He refused to toe the political line and valiantly rejected the fate that Indira Gandhi chose for him. As some jurists put it, this judgment led to imposition of the notorious Emergency in 1977. Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha’s courage in not being swayed by political coercion will certainly inform the preamble to the Judges’ code of ethics. The courage and righteousness that he displayed, still echoes in the corridors of the Allahabad High Court, and continues to fuel the fire in the belly of lawyers and judges alike. Posterity would judge the Allahabad High Court on its ability to promote values of merit, surpassing the egos of its members. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru’s gesture to lobby for Justice Sir Shah Sulaiman’s name for a membership to the then newly created Federal Court — the apex court in India, under the Government of India Act, 1935 would bear testimony to the higher ideals of magnanimity that its members have displayed. Despite the ego tussle between Sir Sapru and Justice Sulaiman, Sir Sapru rose above all human limitations and lobbied for Justice Sulaiman for a seat in the Federal Court, as he was the best the country had. This was an endorsement of the view that merit must prevail over all other considerations.
In his farewell speech, Justice Sulaiman remarked that, “Sir Sapru kicked me high but he kicked me high enough”. It is a rare virtue to harness generosity in a way that promotes values of merit. It is this blend of qualities that distinguishes a great society from a mediocre one. It promotes happiness and creates opportunity for merit.
I would conclude my narration on the moral constitution of the Allahabad High Court with the reference to Pt. Kanhaiya Lal Mishra, a lawyer, leader and, most important, a human being par excellence. He was the fourth Advocate-General of Uttar Pradesh and the longest-serving one as he had served for more than 17 years. Known for his impeccable command over the English language, he secured 150/150 in the English essay paper as part of the Indian Civil Services Examination in 1926. Sir Arthur Quiller Couch — the English professor who corrected his paper, remarked in a letter written to Professor Dunn of the Allahabad University: “It is the Englishmen who have conquered India but it is only KL Mishra who conquered English!” Fali Nariman recounts in his memoir how KL Mishra poked fun at Nani Palkhivala during the hearing of Golaknath’s case, and possibly he was the only one who could have done this. The interpretation to the amendment clause, as offered by Nani Palkhivala, suggesting reading theory of implied limitation into the amendment clause was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1967. It was KL Mishra’s submission that, “plain English cannot be subverted to suit any particular point of view” that prevailed and informed the operating part of the judgment.
As Gustav Mahler puts it: “Tradition is not the worship of ashes but the preservation of fire”. It is this tradition of righteousness, magnanimity and intellectual brilliance which has constituted the moral fabric of this illustrious court. The past has passed the baton to the present generation. It is entirely up to this generation now to worship the ashes or preserve the fire.
(The article was originally published in The Tribune)